Under previous plans, the route linking the Los Angeles area to the Central Valley, Silicon Valley and San Francisco would either have bisected the heavily populated parts of the San Fernando Valley, cutting through Sylmar, Pacoima, Santa Clarita and San Fernando, or gone through a more rural part of the San Fernando Valley, affecting thousands of acres of equestrian lands and estates.

Now the rail authority proposes to instead mostly tunnel under valley communities. Two of its proposed new routes would see the bullet train go underground south of Pacoima and come out north of Santa Clarita. A third, more conventional route would still go above-ground through Lakeview Terrace, Shadow Hills and Sun Valley.

The change initially drew an ecstatic response from one local official. San Fernando Mayor Joel Fajardo called the revisions “absolutely phenomenal” in an interview with the Los Angeles Daily News just after learning of the changes.

But as more information came out, others were far more skeptical. At a San Fernando Valley Council of Governments meeting on Thursday, critics offered many objections. The new route would still have what were deemed unacceptable impacts on Shadow Hills and Sun Valley. A Santa Clarita official said that while the new plan was a big improvement, his city’s position remained that the bullet train should be underground the entire 40 miles-plus from Palmdale to Burbank, not just the approximately 22 to 24 miles from north of Santa Clarita to south of Pacoima. Environmentalists also said the new routes would likely harm two endangered species in the Angeles National Forest.

Underground tunneling: $1 billion a mile?

Rail authority officials provided no detailed information on another aspect of the proposed change: how it would affect the cost of the $64 billion project. Under previous routes, there would have been the need to have about 20 miles of the bullet train go underground. The new plan would only add a few more miles underground. But since it would require going under heavily populated areas — in addition to still having to go through mountains — that would likely add to the complexity of what the Los Angeles Times has described as “the most ambitious tunneling project in the nation’s history.”

By some accounts, underground systems cost about nine times as much as above-ground rail per mile. Details matter with individual projects — cost of land, difficulty of engineering, how many changes must be made to limit effects on the public, etc. A 2013 survey found underground railroad construction costs ranged from $357 million per mile in Sao Paulo, Brazil, to $960 million per mile in Singapore.

The Southern California tunnel seems likely to have a price tag on the high end. If it were to match the price in Singapore, that means at least $21 billion would have to be spent to go from north of Santa Clarita to south of Pacoima — about a third of the tab for the entire project. If the entire Palmdale-to-Burbank route were underground, that would mean at least $38 billion would be needed.

The rail authority is now preparing for construction of the first segment of the bullet train from the Central Valley to Silicon Valley. Plans for the first link to go from the Central Valley to San Fernando Valley were dropped by the state in February, mostly because the new plan is cheaper and would likely face less local criticism.

The state is still struggling to identify how it will come up with funds to build a statewide project; private investors want revenue guarantees that are illegal under state law. Lawsuits also question the project’s legality. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office also recently weighed in with a report saying it was difficult to gauge bullet-train progress because the rail authority keeps making major changes in its plans.

“The California Public Utilities Commission agreed last Thursday with a judge’s recommendation to fine Uber $7.6 million for failing to meet data reporting requirements in 2014,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “Uber will appeal the decision, but has agreed to pay the fine to avoid a 30-day suspension of its license in its home state.”

With a valuation in excess of $60 billion, the fine alone posed little challenge to Uber’s cruise toward ever-greater market dominance. But lawmakers and regulators around the world have littered its road to success with obstacles, repeatedly calling into question the viability of its business model. California, which has stayed at the forefront of technological change and aggressively regulated automotive companies like Volkswagen who ran afoul of the rules, has been seen as both a bellwether and a must-win jurisdiction for Uber.

Broad opposition

The company’s home state hasn’t always cooperated. This month’s fine arose from a protracted dispute reaching through several branches of state government. “In June, a state labor commissioner decided that an Uber driver was an employee and not a contractor — a ruling that was non-binding, but could set a precedent for drivers to ultimately demand more perks and pay. A month later, an administrative law judge recommended that the San Francisco company be fined and suspended from operating in California for the failure to report driver data,” the Times noted. “Uber filed an appeal last August, and a modified decision was made public Wednesday, recommending an even higher fine of $7,626,000, plus a $1,000 contempt fine.”

In addition to penalizing the company, California wanted to threaten it as well. As the Guardian reported, “State lawyers recommended a ruling that gave Uber 30 days to pay the fine or else lose the ability to operate in California.” With little choice, Uber decided to pony up the funds to the California Public Utilities Commission, which oversees state businesses devoted to transportation.

A spate of suits

The big-ticket fine joined a long list of legal troubles Uber has devoted substantial resources to navigating. “In an ongoing civil suit against Uber, the district attorneys of San Francisco and Los Angeles have claimed that ‘systemic failures’ in the company’s background-check process have led to registered sex offenders, identity thieves, burglars and a convicted murderer becoming drivers for the service,” as the Wall Street Journal observed. “The suit claims Uber misled consumers about the effectiveness of background checks and seeks a permanent injunction of the business.” Rather than using a service called Live Scan, employed by many California taxi companies, Uber uses Checkr, which matches convictions to individuals based on an analysis of addresses associated with their name, the Journal added.

At the same time, Uber drivers were recently notified of their inclusion in a class action lawsuit against the company. “Uber agreed to the terms of a $1.8 million suit alleging it inappropriately charged customers an ‘airport fee toll’ late last year,” according to TechCrunch. “The lawsuit, filed in November 2015, accused Uber of charging customers the ‘airport fee toll’ several months before the airport required it, letting drivers keep the fee instead. The lawsuit, which affects an estimated 355,000 customers, was a surprise to many folks who had no idea they were involved.”

That news helped sour a new victory Uber scored at Los Angeles International Airport, a huge source of potential business. Officials okayed Uber pickups at the airport “exactly one month after Lyft launched at LAX, which was originally announced by LA’s Mayor Eric Garcetti,” as TechCrunch reported separately. “Uber and Lyft had battled for months with the airport and the L.A. City Council to reach an agreement that allowed pickups at the airport.”

Earlier this month, a state senator, who has expressed support for racial profiling of ammunition sales, introduced legislation to require background checks and gun registration for weapons assembled at home. Senate Bill 808, authored by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, would require anyone who makes or assembles a firearm to first apply to the Department of Justice for a unique serial number or other identifying mark.

If recent gun-control battles are any indication, the bill's strongest challenge won't come during the legislative process. Instead, it can expect to face a serious challenge from the nation's leading Second Amendment advocacy groups that are taking their cause to court.

Two legal challenges to 'micro-stamping' law

This strategic shift from the legislature to the courthouse is evident with two legal challenges to a seven-year-old California law that requires “micro-stamping” of all semi-automatic pistols sold in the state.

Back in 2007, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the country's first micro-stamping requirement. Assembly Bill 1471, authored by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, required all new semi-automatic pistols sold in the state to use advanced laser technology to imprint the gun’s make, model and serial number.

However, the mandate was slated to take effect once micro-stamping technology became available from more than one manufacturer unrestricted by patents. On May 17, 2013, Attorney General Kamala D. Harris provided the necessary certification.

Earlier this month, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, representing all the major firearm manufacturers nationwide, filed suit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the law. The gun groups say it relies on unproven and unreliable micro-stamping technology.

“There is no existing micro-stamping technology that will reliably, consistently and legibly imprint the required identifying information by a semiautomatic handgun on the ammunition it fires,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. “Manufacturers can not comply with a law the provisions of which are invalid, that cannot be enforced and that will not contribute to improving public safety.”

Peña v. Cid a challenge to gun roster

The challenge in state court is matched by a lawsuit in federal court that seeks to invalidate California's handgun roster.

Last June, attorneys for the Calguns Foundation and Second Amendment Foundation filed an amended complaint in the federal civil rights case Peña v. Cid to include a challenge to California’s handgun micro-stamping regulations. The original lawsuit filed in 2009 contended that the roster regulations constitute an arbitrary list of “acceptable” handgun models approved by the state.

“California's attempt to limit the availability of handguns to her citizens is so broad that it makes it impossible to purchase the revolver that the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically ruled had to be registered to Dick Heller, whose case struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right,” said Gene Hoffman, chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “Now that the state requires micro-stamping, it’s unlikely any new make or model of pistol will be added — making it even clearer that this is an incremental ban on firearms.”

Hoffman is optimistic that his group's challenge will be upheld based on oral arguments at the December court hearing.

“In lingering a bit beyond the one-hour mark, it was clear that the court had a full picture of the briefing and the record as well as a clear understanding of the issues and gravity of the case,” Hoffman, a founder of the Calguns Foundation, wrote based on his observations of the hearing.

Calguns Foundation wins suit against L.A. County sheriff

Calguns Foundation, in particular, has found repeated success in court. Last week, a judge sided with Calguns against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The lawsuit accused the Sheriff’s Department of violating state law by forcing citizens to first obtain permission from a local police chief before applying for a concealed weapon permit. In her ruling in the case of Lu v. Baca, Judge Deirdre Hill ruled that the sheriff’s policy functioned as a de facto ban on handgun carry licenses for Los Angeles County residents. Now, the department must begin accepting and processing handgun carry license applications.

“This decision means that all Californians need not jump through more hoops than those required under state law in order to apply for a handgun carry license and exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Hoffman.

Since 2009, the grassroots organization has brought multiple lawsuits against licensing authorities for failure to comply with state laws. As part of this Carry License Sunshine and Compliance Initiative, the group has routinely relied on public records requests to obtain license application records, department policies and other public documents related to concealed weapons permits. Calguns says that nearly 30,000 handgun carry licenses have been issued since it began the initiative.

In 2011, Calguns Foundation believed that then-San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey was failing to comply with California’s conceal carry laws. Under state law, all agencies that have the authority to issue firearm permits must create and publish a written policy on the process. The law, authored in 1998 by then-Assemblyman Rod Wright, ensures that the controversial program is uniformly applied.

Ultimately, it was a public records request that confirmed the group’s suspicions: The sheriff had selectively enforced the law. The office had awarded a permit to the sheriff’s legal counsel, while simultaneously denying other permits. It was only with the documents obtained by a public records request that the group had the necessary evidence to force compliance.

In addition to Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation has filed similar “right to carry” lawsuits.